
In a significant ruling, the Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court has set aside a 14-year-old order that demoted a government employee from a post he had held for 17 years. The demotion was initially based on a judgment in a case involving a similarly situated employee, who had sought a promotion but was denied. The court found that the demotion was unjustified and lacked proper grounds.
Justice Arun Monga, who presided over the case, pointed out that the petitioner’s case was not discussed in the earlier writ petition, which involved the other employee. The judgment in that case, which was referenced in the demotion order, contained some passing remarks about the petitioner’s promotion being granted erroneously. However, the court ruled that these observations could not be used to justify the demotion, as the petitioner was not a party to that case.
The court emphasized that the observations made in the earlier case were not intended to question the validity of the petitioner’s promotion. They were made solely in the context of the relief sought by the other employee. The court further clarified that the earlier judgment was a personal ruling in the case of the employee, Mohan Lal, and could not be applied to the petitioner’s situation.
The petitioner, who was appointed as a Helper Grade II in the Public Works Department in 1979, was promoted to Electrician Grade II in 1993. He served in this position for 17 years before being demoted in 2010, following the decision in the earlier writ petition. The state government argued that there was no promotion channel from Helper Grade II to Electrician Grade II under the service rules, making the promotion illegal. They also claimed that the promotion was withdrawn as a corrective measure after the earlier ruling.
However, the court disagreed, stating that the observations in the earlier case were not meant to affect the petitioner’s promotion. It also noted that the demotion order was issued far too late, as the petitioner had served in the position for nearly two decades without any allegations of misrepresentation or misconduct.
In light of these findings, the court quashed the demotion order and directed the state to grant the petitioner all retirement benefits and pension based on the promoted post. The petitioner had retired in 2019, and the court’s ruling ensures that he will receive his dues accordingly.